Podcasts about suppress

Eric Goldman (Santa Clara Law) discusses his new paper, “The ‘Segregate-and-Suppress' Approach to Regulating Child Safety Online.”Topics include:The many kinds of online age-verification lawAge verification as an information problemFancy tech as deus ex machinaData collection today; state surveillance tomorrowWhat about devices and app stores?The internet and Maslow's hierarchy of needsChild safety: it takes a villageThe parental consent nightmareLinks:The “Segregate-and-Suppress” Approach to Regulating Child Safety OnlineAge-Verification Laws Are a Verified MistakeTech Policy Podcast 354: Online Age Verification (Sucks)

Science owns the frames and determines what is acceptable to consider in any scientific inquiry! If there is no data on a subject does that mean it becomes invisible? Science is ALWAYS confined to what can be seen in the tangible world, not subtle energy or the message about what could be or what should be that have been available! If you listen all the way until the end, we’ll talk about our vision for using a subtle energy approach that develops human capability and evolution, that could be integrated within science training that could create a new frontier for the Sciences and all other disciplines! Watch: https://youtu.be/q6J3tNeUTpM

Science owns the frames and determines what is acceptable to consider in any scientific inquiry! If there is no data on a subject does that mean it becomes invisible? Science is ALWAYS confined to what can be seen in the tangible world, not subtle energy or the message about what could be or what should be that have been available! If you listen all the way until the end, we'll talk about our vision for using a subtle energy approach that develops  human capability and evolution, that could be integrated within science training that could create a new frontier for the Sciences and all other disciplines!     Watch: https://youtu.be/q6J3tNeUTpM   

All Things STS: Https://linktr.ee/stspodcastGet Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorCatch us live on YouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeVenmo Donations: @STSPodcast#STSNation, Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the #BestGuests in all of #TrueCrime… In a chilling courtroom showdown, Stephan Sterns — the man accused of raping and murdering 13-year-old Madeline Soto, his girlfriend's daughter — appeared in court this week fighting to suppress digital evidence that prosecutors say contains years of abuse. Sterns took the stand himself in a rare legal move, claiming police violated his rights when they accessed his phone without a warrant. The evidence includes hundreds of sexually explicit photos allegedly stored in his Google account and device, but his defense argues he only consented to a limited search. Prosecutors say a factory reset and verbal consent justify the seizure — and they plan to use any guilty verdict in the sex abuse case as an aggravator in the murder trial to seek the death penalty. #BestGuests: 1. Ryan Vescio – Former homicide prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Orlando 2. Sonny Slaughter – Victims' rights advocate 3. John Tompkins - Criminal Defense attorney We'll break down what happened in the courtroom, what's next in the trial, and whether this evidence will make it in front of a jury.#StephanSterns #MadelineSoto #JusticeForMaddie #SurvivingTheSurvivor #TrueCrime #ChildMurder #SexualAbuse #SuppressionHearing #CourtTV #BestGuests #CriminalLaw #DeathPenalty #VictimsRights #TrueCrimeCommunity

Stephan Sterns made a rare court appearance, where he testified during a motions hearing aimed at dismissing critical evidence against him. Sterns faces charges for the murder of Madeline Soto, his girlfriend's daughter, who was killed shortly after her 13th birthday. Nicole Partin reporting See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, the show features ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt's testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee on efforts to curb antisemitism on college campuses. We also hear from Ken Stern, one of the original drafters of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, who raises concerns about its use in ways that may restrict free speech. Thank you for listening, subscribing and sharing the Third Opinion Podcast!

It's hard to create a law about children online without first identifying who the children are. We've written a lot about the problems that arise with mandated age verification, and a new paper by Eric Goldman, The "Segregate-and-Suppress" Approach to Regulating Child Safety Online, digs into why the entire popular approach to such laws is paradoxical and broken. This week, Eric joins us on the podcast for a discussion about why regulators should develop a wider and more thoughtful toolkit of online child safety measures. Read the paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5208739

Lincoln's call for volunteers was part of his effort to maintain the authority of the federal government after several southern states seceded from the ...

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

EP 235 The IT Privacy and Security Weekly Update and a Gene Genie for the Week Ending March 25th., 20253/25/20250 CommentsEP 235. ​- click the pic to hear the podcast -DNA of 15 Million People For Sale.  Turns out your great-great-grandparents' DNA is now a going-out-of-business clearance sale!"Clearview Tried to Buy Social Security Numbers and Mugshots.  Shopping list: milk, eggs, 690 million arrest records, and a side of your soul.Hungary Uses Facial Recognition to Suppress a Pride March—because nothing says “freedom” like being fined for your face.China says no facial recognition in hotel rooms—so go ahead and enjoy your surveillance-free shower while it lasts.US Agencies Halt Counter-Russian Cyberattack Coordination to stop Russian cyber sabotage and, what could possibly go wrong?Microsoft Isn't Fixing 8-Year-Old Shortcut Exploit.  Maybe it's a new cybersecurity policy, "If we ignore it long enough, perhaps it'll go away!"Then, If you have a Windows 10 machine and can't install Windows 11, Microsoft suggests a fix.  Buy a new computer and maybe get a second job.And finally, Dutch universities to WhatsApp, "It's not you, it's us.  We just can't get comfortable with your data hoarding."Let's go try on some genes!Find the full transcript to this podcast here.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdf

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdf

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdf

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdf

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdf

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a Seagate 2TB External USB Drive (Serial Number #NA87T1GN), which contained a copy of his cell phone data. The defense argued that the affidavit supporting the January 9, 2023, search warrant omitted material information and included details derived from what they claimed were unconstitutional investigative methods, specifically the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). They contended that the warrant lacked particularity, effectively functioning as a general warrant, and that the affidavit was not properly incorporated into the warrant, potentially leading to an overbroad search of Kohberger's digital data.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Cellphone-Data.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

If you want to listen to the full episode (XYBM 126) from this clip, search for the title: "How to turn your Pain into Purpose? with Aaron Green” — it was released on March 10, 2025.In episode XYBM 126, I sit down with Aaron Green, CEO of StruggleMadeMe to discuss his journey of forgiving his father's killer, overcoming trauma and navigating an upbringing shaped by violence and multiple encounters with gun violence. Aaron shares invaluable insights on healing, resilience, and how to break cycles of violence, making this episode a must-listen for anyone looking to build a better future for themselves and their communities. His story is one of resilience, healing, and transformation — you don't want to miss this conversation.   Tune in on all podcast streaming platforms, including YouTube.Leave a 5-star review ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ if you found value in this episode or a previous episode!BOOK US FOR SPEAKING + BRAND DEALS: ————————————Explore our diverse collaboration opportunities as the leading and fastest-growing Black men's mental health platform on social media. Let's create something dope for your brand/company. Take the first step by filling out the form on our website: https://www.expressyourselfblackman.com/speaking-brand-deals HOW TO FIND A DOPE, BLACK THERAPIST: ————————————We are teaching a FREE webinar on how to find a dope, Black therapist – sign up for the next session here: https://event.webinarjam.com/channel/black-therapistAll webinar attendees will have the opportunity to be paired with a Black mental health professional in Safe Haven. We have had 5K+ people sign up for this webinar in the past. Don't miss out. Slots are limited. SAFE HAVEN:————————————Safe Haven is a holistic healing platform built for Black men by Black men. In Safe Haven, you will be connected with a Black mental health professional, so you can finally heal from the things you find it difficult to talk about AND you will receive support from like-minded Black men that are all on their healing journey, so you don't have to heal alone.Join Safe Haven Now: https://www.expressyourselfblackman.com/safe-havenSUPPORT THE PLATFORM:————————————Safe Haven: https://www.expressyourselfblackman.com/safe-havenMonthly Donation: https://buy.stripe.com/eVa5o0fhw1q3guYaEEMerchandise: https://shop.expressyourselfblackman.comFOLLOW US:————————————TikTok: @expressyourselfblackman (https://www.tiktok.com/@expressyourselfblackman) Instagram:Host: @expressyourselfblackman (https://www.instagram.com/expressyourselfblackman) Guest: @bigspeakerag (https://www.instagram.com/bigspeakerag/)YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ExpressYourselfBlackManFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/expressyourselfblackman

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his white 2015 Hyundai Elantra, VIN: 5NPDH4AE6FH579860, conducted under a Pennsylvania search warrant. The defense contends that the warrant lacked probable cause, asserting that it was based on investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) techniques that they argue violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. They claim that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained misleading information and omitted key details that could have been exculpatory, thereby rendering the search unconstitutional.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-White-Hyundai.pdf

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his white 2015 Hyundai Elantra, VIN: 5NPDH4AE6FH579860, conducted under a Pennsylvania search warrant. The defense contends that the warrant lacked probable cause, asserting that it was based on investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) techniques that they argue violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. They claim that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained misleading information and omitted key details that could have been exculpatory, thereby rendering the search unconstitutional.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-White-Hyundai.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs' alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs' alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs' motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs' alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs' alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs' motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs' alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs' alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs' motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs' alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs' alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs' motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf